PROHIBITION IN THE UNITED STATES.

Otago Daily Times, Issue 20005, 24 January 1927, Page 10

PROHIBITION IN THE UNITED STATES.

TO THE EDITOR. Sir,—Your editorial of January 18 pre‘sonts a one-sided view of the prohibition situation in the United States and is inaccurate insofar as you say that the law “admits” (by which I think your readers will conclude you' mean permits) the homobrewing of intoxicating beverages. The prohibition law makes it illegal to manufacture any beverage containing more than one half of I per cent, of alcohol, no matter where the manufactux-e takes place. It is true that this cannot altogether prevent those citizens who wish to do so endeavouring to make intoxicating liquor. If this home-brewing was increasing in magnitude and efficiency, as you suggest, the bootlegger would certainly have little business. What you seem to overlook is that it is the bootlegger who in most instances manufacture the spirit, and he is finding it harder every year to carry on the business. If we are to reckon up the debits and credits of the prohibition law, then we should certainly take into consideration the following facts:—A Government report has stated that the saving of human life in five years during prohibition totalled 1,000,000 or 200,000 lives per annum. Professor Irving Fisher, a leading economist, has stated that the saving resulting from the prohibition law is at least £1,200,000,000 per annum, of £8,400,000,000 in seven years. If you estimate the net cost to (he citizens, as stated in the recent cable, you will find that it is one shilling per head for seven years or twopence per head per annum on the basis of 115,000,000 population, a small investment for a big return. Roger W 7. Babson, leading commercial statistician, says that the prohibition law has diverted £1 360 000,000 annually to better business, that millions of working men have become able to establish a credit, and so to enjoy added purchasing power and added comforts of life through credit buying, and that the productive capacity of labour has been increased by at least 10 per cent. lire only reliable figures as to .criminality are those issued by the United .States Census Bureau, which show that in the period 1910 to 1923 there was a marked decrease of 37.7 per cent, in general criminality in proportion to popiuation. I could fill columns of space with statements from captains of industry, Governors of States, economists, educationalists, and social welfare workers who have testified to the benefits derived from the prohibition law. . . , Evtry intelligent voter in the United States knows that he can get rid ot the prohibition law any time by sending up to Congress representatives and Senators desirous of seeing the law modified or repealed. But every Congress elected since the prohibition law was enacted lias been overwhelmingly "dry. In the recent elections in New York State on a useless referendum a “wet’ majority was recorded, but the outstanding ’wet ot [he country, Senator Wadsworth, was heavilv defeated by an outstanding dry. In California, where there was a referendum on the question of continuing or repealing the local enforcement law, the people voted to retain it, and more than doubled the majority by whiqh they originally voted for it. ~ _ , President Harding and President Coolidge have both specifically declared the prohibition law to be the deliberate expressed will of the people. A small pei* centage of discontented wets in a lai pc population can make a lot of noise, but all the evidence goes to show that the prohibition law will be increasingly effectively enforced with consequent advantage to the United States. In the Encyclopedia Britannica, an economist with an international reputation, Professor Nixon Carver, discussing the action of the United States in abolishing the liquor traffic, says of other nations: “Thc v who refuse to take this great step forward in economy of human resources, whether they understand it or not, are definitely choosing to occupy a secondary position in the civilised world.”—l am, etc.. J, Malton Murray, Executive Secretary, N.Z. Alliance. Wellington, January 20. [The first paragraph only of the above letter has any bearing on an article of January 18. Even though the Administration in the United States may have the power to suppress the domestic manufacture of beer and wine, it is apparent that it has not the desire to do so. for it has refrained from raiding private kitchens and basements. — Ed. O.D.T.]